CHATTISGARSH: <\/em>The Chhattisgarh High Court<\/a><\/strong> has upheld a divorce granted to a husband after finding that his wife\u2019s continued refusal to resume cohabitation, prolonged separation and demand for \u20b92 crore as a condition for consenting to divorce<\/strong> amounted to mental cruelty<\/strong> in the facts of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha <\/strong>and<\/strong> Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal<\/strong> dismissed the matrimonial appeal filed by the wife against the Family Court\u2019s judgment. The Family Court had dissolved the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion<\/strong> and awarded the wife \u20b910 lakh as permanent alimony<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The parties married on 29 June 2020<\/strong> according to Hindu rites. No child was born from the marriage. According to the husband, disputes developed between the wife and his family members. He alleged that she left the matrimonial home in February 2022 and did not return despite requests from him, his family and efforts made during counselling sessions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife denied the allegations and claimed that she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment. She maintained that she wanted to continue the marriage. She also relied upon the husband\u2019s matrimonial profile, in which he had described his status as \u201cAwaiting Divorce\u201d<\/strong>, to argue that he had already decided to end the marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She further alleged that a fake matrimonial profile had been created in her name. An FIR <\/a>was registered under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code<\/em><\/strong> and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act<\/em><\/strong>, and the criminal proceedings were stated to be pending.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband opposed the appeal and argued that the wife had deserted him and subjected him to cruelty. He submitted that the parties had been living separately since February 2022 and that the Family Court had correctly assessed the evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining the oral and documentary record, the High Court observed that repeated attempts had been made to persuade the wife to return to the matrimonial home. Counselling was conducted but cohabitation could not be restored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the parties had reached a point of no reconciliation<\/strong> and that several cases and counter-cases had been initiated during the matrimonial dispute. It held that the wife\u2019s continuing refusal to live with the husband deprived him of matrimonial companionship and consortium<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A significant fact emerged from the wife\u2019s cross-examination. The judgment records that she admitted proposing that she would agree to divorce if the husband paid her a lump-sum amount of \u20b92 crore<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court also recorded that this was the wife\u2019s second marriage and that she had earlier received \u20b925 lakh as alimony from her previous husband<\/strong>. The parties in the present marriage had lived together for around 19 months before separating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the appeal, the High Court referred the parties to mediation to explore a settlement, particularly regarding permanent alimony and dissolution of marriage. However, mediation failed. The Court recorded that the settlement could not be reached primarily because of the wife\u2019s lump-sum monetary demand, which the husband did not accept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe unsuccessful mediation proceedings, coupled with the prolonged separation of the parties and the multiple litigations pending inter se, reinforce the conclusion that the marriage has reached a stage where its continuance would serve no meaningful purpose and would only perpetuate the mental agony and hardship already suffered by both parties,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court agreed with the Family Court that the cumulative conduct had caused the husband serious mental pain, frustration and emotional distress. It observed that matrimonial cruelty is not restricted to physical violence. Deliberate neglect, prolonged deprivation of companionship and conduct that seriously affects a spouse\u2019s mental well-being may also constitute mental cruelty<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court had also found that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/strong> were initiated against the husband and his relatives after complaints had already been made by the husband and his mother. According to the Family Court\u2019s findings reproduced in the High Court judgment, those proceedings caused harassment, mental agony and reputation harm<\/strong> to the husband <\/strong>and his family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court held that the wife failed to show any perversity, illegality or material irregularity in the Family Court\u2019s findings. It concluded that her cumulative conduct constituted mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, the ruling should not be read as declaring that every high settlement demand automatically amounts to cruelty. The Court considered the demand as part of the complete factual circumstances, including the wife\u2019s refusal to return, years of separation, failed reconciliation efforts, multiple litigations and the absence of any realistic possibility of restoring married life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench also rejected the wife\u2019s challenge to the \u20b910 lakh permanent alimony<\/strong>. It found no basis to interfere with the Family Court\u2019s discretion and directed the husband to deposit the amount before the Family Court within four weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the wife\u2019s appeal was dismissed, and the divorce decree granted to the husband was affirmed. The ruling recognises an important but frequently ignored reality in matrimonial litigation: a husband may also suffer sustained emotional and legal pressure when companionship is denied, reconciliation is repeatedly rejected and the marriage is kept alive only through monetary conditions and continuing litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
LAW\/SECTION<\/strong><\/strong><\/td> WHAT IT COVERS<\/strong><\/strong><\/td> RELEVANCE IN THIS CASE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 19(1), Family Courts Act<\/a>, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Provides for an appeal to the High Court against specified judgments and orders passed by a Family Court.<\/td> The wife filed the present first appeal against the Family Court\u2019s divorce decree under this provision.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1), Hindu Marriage Act,<\/a> 1955<\/strong><\/td> Contains statutory grounds on which either spouse may seek dissolution of marriage.<\/td> The husband filed the divorce petition alleging cruelty and desertion.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than one\u2019s spouse after marriage.<\/td> The wife argued that allegations of adultery had not been legally proved because no evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse was produced.<\/td><\/tr> Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act,<\/a> 1955<\/strong><\/td> Permits divorce where one spouse has treated the other with cruelty after marriage. Cruelty may be physical or mental.<\/td> The High Court held that the wife\u2019s cumulative conduct caused grave mental agony and constituted mental cruelty.<\/td><\/tr> Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Empowers the court to award permanent alimony and maintenance while considering income, property, conduct and surrounding circumstances.<\/td> The wife challenged the \u20b910 lakh permanent alimony award, arguing that proper financial disclosure and assessment had not been conducted. The challenge was rejected.<\/td><\/tr> Section 419, Indian Penal Code<\/a>, 1860<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for cheating by personation, including pretending to be another person.<\/td> An FIR was registered concerning the wife\u2019s allegation that a fake matrimonial profile had been created in her name.<\/td><\/tr> Section 66C, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/strong><\/td> Punishes fraudulent or dishonest use of another person\u2019s electronic signature, password or unique identification feature.<\/td> Invoked in the FIR concerning the allegedly fake online matrimonial profile.<\/td><\/tr> Section 66D, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/strong><\/td> Punishes cheating by personation through a computer resource or communication device.<\/td> Also invoked in relation to the allegedly fake matrimonial profile.<\/td><\/tr> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/a>, 2005<\/strong><\/td> Provides civil and protective remedies to an aggrieved woman alleging domestic violence, including protection, residence and monetary relief.<\/td> Proceedings under the Act were initiated by the wife against the husband and his family. The Family Court treated the timing and circumstances of those proceedings as part of the overall matrimonial conduct.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n CASE DETAILS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Particular<\/strong><\/strong><\/td> Details<\/strong><\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> Ayushi Ginoria (Agrawal) v. Sumit Agrawal<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> FA(MAT) No. 287 of 2025<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td> 2026:CGHC:27921-DB<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha <\/strong>and<\/strong> Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Judgment Authored By<\/strong><\/td> Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Decision Date<\/strong><\/td> 7 July 2026<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Counsel for Appellant<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Manoj Paranjape, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Counsel for Respondent<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Impugned Decision<\/strong><\/td> Family Court, Dhamtari judgment dated 22 July 2025<\/strong> in Civil Suit No. 104A\/2023<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n